Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

Ukraine's under-reported story

2641 105
Amazing developments in Ukraine the last few days because of advanced weapons we gave them, such as HIMARS.

Totally blown away the myth of the Red Army, two-thirds of which was committed to their invasion of Ukraine.

And they were decisively defeated by an untrained army that was on the ropes, because we gave a partial sampling of our weapons.

Now that the Red Army has been decisively defeated, they have to call up 300,000 reservists to defend their country, otherwise they could be conquered by tiny Ukraine.

Putin's decision to call up reservists reveals that he can't use nukes to defend Russia. You know the guy is bluffing when he says it's not a bluff.

Destroying an enemy army with advanced weapons is easy. Nation-building is hard. This reminds us of how stupid it was to try to make the Afghanis just like us, when they don't want to be just like us.
  • Like
Reactions: superj
41 - 60 of 106 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
One of the concepts of containment is that they don't get to attack their neighbors just because they have nukes. We'll defend their neighbors, so they have nothing to gain by acquiring nukes.


We fought the Soviets directly in Korea and Viet Nam. Under Trump, we fought the Russians directly in Syria. No one was tougher on Russia than Trump was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
One of the concepts of containment is that they don't get to attack their neighbors just because they have nukes. We'll defend their neighbors, so they have nothing to gain by acquiring nukes.
Thats a misunderstanding and misuse of the whole thing. It may work for some countries not to acquire nukes relying on 3rd party. So far good. But the same rule could apply in a reverse manner. They can defend your neighbors (or any other country) not to be attacked by US. So its par-par.

We fought the Soviets directly in Korea and Viet Nam. Under Trump, we fought the Russians directly in Syria. No one was tougher on Russia than Trump was.
Yes and lost in all 3 conflicts. OK, Korea was 50/50 :D
In Syria Obama in early 2014 authorized direct attacks against the militant ISIL an AQ groups in Syria. Also supporting the Kurdish militias (YPG) without the
consent of the legitimate Syrian government and with the absence of a UN Security Council decision. That was de facto an act of aggression and gross
violation of international law. On 17 September, the US house of representatives approved Obama's plan to train and arm the Syrian rebels in their fight
against ISIL. In a statement following the House vote, Obama said that the United States would not send military troops to Syria. But in november 2015,
the Obama administration began the deployment of U.S. special forces to Syria. I have nothing against fight against ISIL or Al Quaeda, but US started
supporting SDF against legitimate government. So it was an involvement in the civil war which in no way was a thing of US. Same way as in Kosovo.
The main point here are oil fileds and mil. bases
And Syria in particular was a blame for US. Because at the end you dropped your former own allies. And that influenced the foreign politics and relationship to
USA in many arab countries.For example today there is no one arab islamic country supporting sanctions against Russia. Opposite. Look at your former Saudi
friends what they are doing now.

I can not judge whether Trump was thougher than others, but i have to say that he has a lot of similarities to Putin. Maybe that was the point why these two found
some points of agreement.But definitely Brandon does not know what he is doing and even worse some people in pentagon and CIA know that Brandon is
a puppet and try to overtension the puppets strings beyond the limits. And thats bad both for US and other parties
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,221 Posts
Anyone who thinks ukraine is a democracy and claims that is flat out lying. This so-called country is ripe with corruption and has been for a long while. Why we sent weapons and billions to this shthole just to see some of these weapons end up on the black market and most all of the money stolen by the top in the so-called ukraine government. A lot of republicans are included in this "proxy war" with russia . I could give a rats a ss about this country and that war.
It's just another money grab for the washington elite and the weapon makers........Its all a con just like biden presidency
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
I only support containment because it was worth it to mess up Putin. The Europeans will give money to Ukraine, we're only providing weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
I only support containment because it was worth it to mess up Putin.
But it seems it does not work the way one thinks it should. At least not so black/white

The Europeans will give money to Ukraine, we're only providing weapons.
EU gives money, weapons.... cuts off its cheap energy source believing in a chimera of a non-existent US altruism and support
That way EU destroys its own economy and increases dependancy. That is exactly the US plan.

US provides weapons and some money. But more money was sucked out of Ukraine by certain US politics. US increases production
of weapons which at the end are paid by someone else thus making the war industry and home economy bloom. Same plan here.

Now the EU comitee is preparing a special law which will allow to confiscate previously seized and banned russian funds, assets and properties.
And (theoreticaly) use it to support UA By other words they want to create a law to legalize theft. We are talking here about some $400 - 500 billion.
Problem is that RU has under control western assets worth almost twice as much. And they said that if you then we too.
Other problem is that many countries over the world including China, which had their savings and assets in EUR or USD and deposited in the western world
countries are moving thes back home because they feel taht these assets are not secure anymore and could be stolen just because someone creates
a puspose-made law. And that is not good for the stability of our currencies
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
EU gives money, weapons.... cuts off its cheap energy source believing in a chimera of a non-existent US altruism and support
That way EU destroys its own economy and increases dependancy. That is exactly the US plan.

It seems like you believe a lot of Putin's rhetoric. Here's a clue about gauging Putin's sincerity: when he targets civilians, interrupts water supply, and orders other acts of genocide and widespread war crimes, these actions provide reliable indicators about whether Putin actually believes what he's saying.


Nuclear non-proliferation is not the only benefit of containment. We don't always get to choose our allies. Sometimes the necessity of containment requires us to assist a bad leader like Zelensky. We're not doing it to assist Zelensky. We're doing it to contain Putin within his borders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
It seems like you believe a lot of Putin's rhetoric.
No. I just live in the middle of EU and see it on a daily basis. With energy prices, companies going broke, gas at 8 for gallon....
cutting down the funds for own people in any possible way...And on the other side millions in support for UA, refugees, economic migrants
green deal, wind turbines aliens, donald duck, cinderella mermaids and whoever else.

And about targeting civilians .. well, its a war. He does not target civilians on purpose. But there are casualties in any war
Targeting energy infrastructure is the same tactics as used by US in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam Lybia.....so where is the difference?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
If we had not intervened against Putin in Ukraine, then later on we would have had to intervene against Putin in Poland and Hungary.

Except Putin would have been stronger after taking Ukraine. Natural resource exploitation is the only part of the economy that works in Putin's kleptocracy. Ukraine is rich in natural resources, so it would have been a great prize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
If we had not intervened against Putin in Ukraine, then later on we would have had to intervene against Putin in Poland and Hungary.
Seems you are strongly biased by your media. Russia had no intent to go farther west. Poland has its own historical problems with Russia and its own territorial dreams.
Look at todays Poland rethorics. On the one side they want the Galicia (Haličina, now part of Ukraine, Lvov) region on the east because before WW2
it was Poland and they also want to keep the western part which is now Poland but belonged to Germany before WW2. They want a part of Latvia... because
they still live their dream about Reczpospolita (historical polish-latvian kingdom). Strange part of the story is that especially the Galicia region is well known
for their nazi history. They praise war criminals (Bandera, Suchewits, Petlyura) as a national heroes. There was even a special SS division Galicien formed from ukrainians
during the WW2. Used mainly against polish and jews in that territory and as an annihilation force in concentration camps. Murdered some half million of people. all
under the leadership of todays ukraines national heroes.

Question is what will be now, because polish want to get involved in the UA conflict directly. They even signed a treaty with Zelensky about borderless territory
and legal presence of polish military forces in the UA. So sooner or later they strike with RU forces. And if it happens then it will be very thin ice, because
a member of NATO will directly fight against RU, but not on his own territory. And i am afraid that certain people in White house will try to misuse that situation
to get the whole alliance and USA get involved directly. And thats WW3.

Russia has no ambitions in Hungary. They have quite good relationship, hungarian leader Viktor Orban is a black sheep in the whole EU because he signed
some agreements with RU. Some EU politics labeled him asa RU agent. Hungary does not support weapons to UA. Still have cheap russian as, RU builds a new NPP in HU...

Except Putin would have been stronger after taking Ukraine. Natural resource exploitation is the only part of the economy that works in Putin's kleptocracy. Ukraine is rich in natural resources, so it would have been a great prize.
Not sure about that. Some facts? if the only part wold be the resources,then it wold not be possible for him to do what he is doing. Look at the assets and exchange
rate of RU ruble compared to USD for last 10 months. In spite of all sanctions. So do not be biased towards your media. He made allies all around, cooperating with
China, Inda,Arabic countries, Latin America, African countries ..... all of these are full of resources. So be it that way, then we have problem, because he will control
(of at least have influence of) so many natural resources over the world that....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,802 Posts
I was talking to my brother last night, and the media is making the
Ukraine look like the victim when in reality they draw first blood.

I need to go back to the begining to wrap my head around all this...

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
It's not relevant that Brandon and Zelensky are bad.

Containing Putin within his borders is beneficial to the world, and is saving us from having a bigger fight in countries that have better governments, such as Poland and Hungary.

Containing Putin also reduces the risk of nuclear war, by reducing the liklihood of the chinese communist party invading Taiwan.

Throughout the cold war with the soviets, most of our allies were bad, such as Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Greece, Turkey, Latin America, etc., etc. With the passage of time, after the soviet union was dissolved, most of our bad allies evolved into democracies.

So another reason it doesn't matter that Zelensky is bad, because most American allies evolve into democracies.

It doesn't matter that Brandon is bad, we won the cold war with bad presidents, like Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
It's not relevant that Brandon and Zelensky are bad.
True. The same for any other leader.

Containing Putin within his borders is beneficial to the world, and is saving us from having a bigger fight in countries that have better governments, such as Poland and Hungary.
It is a strongly biased point of view. Define to which world is it beneficial and to save who from who. Poland and Hungary are two totally different animals. We border with both.
Been in both countries bazilion times, have a lot of friends there so i think i can compare and judge thes two in a more appropriate way than you. And honestly, if it comes to
dissolving the EU, then Poland will be one of the leaders of that movement.

Containing Putin also reduces the risk of nuclear war, by reducing the liklihood of the chinese communist party invading Taiwan.
The same for the opposite party. And i do not want to be a moron but who used the nukes first? And wasn´t it Churchill who demanded a preventive nuke strike
on soviets back in the fifties? Chinese will invade taiwan sooner or later. No matter what Putin does.

Throughout the cold war with the soviets, most of our allies were bad, such as Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Greece, Turkey, Latin America, etc., etc. With the passage of time,
after the soviet union was dissolved, most of our bad allies evolved into democracies.So another reason it doesn't matter that Zelensky is bad, because most American allies evolve into democracies.
Bulls..ht! Some of them maybe, some not. But imported democracy does not work in every country nor does the US model of government. Look at Afghanistan, Lybia, Iraq, former
Yougoslavia...and also Turkey. turkey is not a democracy. At least not the US style one. The same for South Korea

It doesn't matter that Brandon is bad, we won the cold war with bad presidents, like Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter.
Noone won the cold war all parties lost. Soviet Union more than USA. Buth sides lost some $10 trillion on an 4 decades arms race
Gorbatchew once said "We only won when the Cold War ended." And Reagan agreed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 ·
I was talking to my brother last night, and the media is making the
Ukraine look like the victim when in reality they draw first blood.

I need to go back to the begining to wrap my head around all this...

Hey you guys, lately I've been noticing that a bunch of us have been expressing some logical fallacies. Not just in this thread, by the way. I think we're in need of a refresher course :


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·
Now that the Russians seem to be withdrawing from Kherson, the next step for the Ukrainians may very well be to outflank the Russians far from the east bank of the Dneiper, instead of attempting a river crossing. So the Ukrainians would next attack in the directions of Donetsk and Mariupol to cut the "land bridge," which is certainly feasible with ARTY to interdict Russian supply lines.

This will give the Russians a choice of withdrawing forces into Crimea, or withdrawing from Crimea altogether, since their position may be untenable without rail supply from the east.

Incredible news today, that incompetent Brandon is directing Milley to push for a ceasefire (i.e., unilateral surrender). I can sort of see how such a ludicrous instruction would arise. Brandon doesn't really give a rat's rear end about what happens to Ukraine. Instead, Brandon's just trying to manage the current news cycle, wants to make it appear that he's obtained a "solution," no matter how nonsensical his solution may be.

This is why our enemies always show so much determination in fighting us. They know there's a very good chance we'll do something stupid, like surrendering when we were winning.

For Brandon, the answers in foreign policy always involve surrender, and his answers in domestic policy always involve tax and spend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fishadventure

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
The Kherson - or right bank of Dneper river withdrawal is sort of weird and ununderstandable movement.
Because Russians just left the area without any reason and against all common strategical sense. So we will wait how it turns around in couple weeks.
The propaganda about their reason is just ridiculous. On both sides. Russians claim bad material supply, bridges etc...But they could buy a dozen ponton bridges instead. They had good position to withstand the artillery and missile attacks from UA forces The fear of busting the Khakhovka dam - well right bank of Dneper
is much higher than left bank. So moving the forces to the left bank has no sense for them. Plus that way they risk that more of their territory will be in the range
of the UA (USA) missiles
Ukrainians claim that they had shelled them out and Russians did not want to have so much casualties and claimed about the equipment they left there.
Did not see any evidence of that. And thats strange, because their media show every single destroyed tank and even carry these along the country to make
public shows. But now plain silence about that Others say other things. carefully watched various media from both sides, including various arabic and israeli
but i am not wiser a single bit.
Fact is that RU forces withdrew during the night in a quite well organized manner, taking all the equipment with. At the end they busted all bridges and
damaged the road thru Khakovka dam.

Heard rumors about some kind of deal that if they withdraw from the right bank then UA will stop attacking Donbass and Lugansk territories .... God knows if true
or not. But they will not withdraw from Crimea. Forget about it.

...incompetent Brandon is directing Milley to push for a ceasefire (i.e., unilateral surrender). I can sort of see how such a ludicrous instruction would arise. Brandon doesn't really give a rat's rear end about what happens to Ukraine. Instead, Brandon's just trying to manage the current news cycle, wants to make it appear that he's obtained a "solution," no matter how nonsensical his solution may be.
Thats plain simple. UA wants to gain some time to withstand the winter and recreate their army, waiting for massive weapon supply from the west. They talk
about peace but the only thing they want is time. Russians know about it. And i doubt they will wait.

Russians evacuated all civilians from the right bank od Dnepr river.So i fear that they just let the UA army (and polish and whatever mercenaries who are there)
to go in and then just annihilate these. Or they wait until winter

Other possible scenario is that UA just throws all possible forces to Donetsk and Lugansk fronts and they leave only a small group in the right river bank,
because RU forces now have taken Bakhmut (Artemovsk), Pavlovka - now attacking the city of Ugledar, made a breakthru in the front between Avdejevka
and Donetsk taking Pervomayskoe, Opytnoe, Vodyannoe etc. This seems more real to me because UA forces already started throwing new reserves in
that direction.

Plus there is also other point of view. The withdrawal of RU forces from Kherson was surprisingly quiet and smooth. The UA flag dances and TV show
for CNN in Kherson was also surprisingly fast. OK, no big deal. But other things happened just out of sudden. London stock exchange lifted the ban
for trading with russian metal resources. Russian ships with fertilizers for Africa, which have been blocked for months in the Netherlands are free now and
sailing to its destination. Russian grain trade ban was also partialy lifted. USA canceled sanctions on India for buying russian oil and gas.... and so on
As classic says, something rotten in the Danish state.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,409 Posts
Russian grain trade ban was also partialy lifted. USA canceled sanctions on India for buying russian oil and gas.... and so on
As classic says, something rotten in the Danish state.
Yup.
I’ve said from the beginning the whole thing was strange and defied logic from several perspectives. Imho. And I thought something bigger was going on and we just can’t see it, can’t be known.
the inconsistencies are disturbing imho
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
The Kherson - or right bank of Dneper river withdrawal is sort of weird and ununderstandable movement.
Because Russians just left the area without any reason and against all common strategical sense.

Out of necessity. Putin is getting his A55 handed to him, because we gave the Ukrainians a few of our weapons.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: skjeep

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
Out of necessity. Putin is getting his A55 handed to him, because we gave the Ukrainians a few of our weapons.
Seriously? One third of that few was destroyed, other third sold no one knows to who and where and one third spreaded all over UA.
So in that black pitt it really makes no difference. And it could easily turn into a second Iran-contra scandal.

And do not get me wrong, i do not blame the efficiency of US weapon systems. But that is really not the reason for that.
This is far more about politics and money than about weapons. And money at a first place. For example Ukrainian railroads- There are 3 main railroads
to supply UA army with western weapons. One goes thru Slovakia I see the trains daily going back and forth. A lot of trains, fully loaded, heading west.
Country of origin? Guess what? Russian federation. All these major train knots and three key bridges are well within russian VKS (air forces). To destroy
these is a matter of couple hours. But since the beginning of war, there was no one single attempt to destroy it. Because both western ukrainian and
russian oligarchs and high level traders agreed so. because they earn enormous amounts on that. And there is only one "grey" road from RU to the west.
So sanctions here,sanctions there..its still fully operational. because money talks. For example titanium. Russia produces 87% of the worlds production
of titanium. In the soviet era their submarines had almost whole body from it. 3500 tons each. Titanium is used for aircraft wings and various other stuff.
Even the Xcalibur shells for M777 howitzers are made of it. Yes, the same shells USA gives to UA and UA uses to shell RU army are made of russian
titanium. The same goes for certain kind of production made in Ukraine and Russia in the factories owned by certain people. Unlimited flow.

And the money just circles. Ukrainian government invested the majority of funds Ukraine got from USA (and Europe) into cryptocurrencies. Mostly
thru FTX. No one would knew if FTX did not bankrupted. we talk about 50 to 80 billion USD. And guess what? Ceo and owner of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried
was the 2nd biggest sponsor of the US democratic party in the midterm elections, just after Soros.

Rectangle Font Screenshot Brand Graphics
 
41 - 60 of 106 Posts
Top